In early 2007, a group of entrepreneurial souls in the Tunbridge area decided to try something different. They knew people could save money and energy, and reduce CO2 in the atmosphere by using solar energy to replace (or at least preheat) their conventional domestic hot water.
So, they devised a challenge [PDF file]: get 50 families to install solar hot water. It was a big challenge. It required helping people leap some pretty big hurdles - cost being one of the biggest.
They worked with banks to arrange for "energy efficient loans" with a reduced interest rate, they gathered information on federal and state rebate programs, and then then they set to work.
They set up an educational event (or two, or three) to teach people about the economic reasons to go solar: for example, you'd save $500/yr on a $700 propane bill for heating water for a family of 4. Once the cost of the system - after rebates - had been paid for by savings, then the system would be providing all that hot water for free ... for decades. The payback period, depending on your site, can be as little as 5 years, but is almost always less than 7 years. This means a greater than 10% return on your investment. When was the last time your savings account, or even your 401k did that?.
Anyway, it was a great success, and now, another challenge is set to launch NEXT SATURDAY, April 24 in the Upper Valley. If you live in the area or want to learn more (perhaps start one in your area?), it's going to be worth the trip.
This is the kind of challenge Vermont needs in order to create the real changes that will help all Vermonters - bringing green jobs, saving scarce money, and helping keep the air clean for our children.
The news that the Obama administration will champion targeted assistance for small U.S. businesses is a welcome turn of events after decades of public policy that has routinely favored huge multi-national corporations over the enterprising little guy. It also provides an opportunity to focus on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the insidious way its operations have been redirected to serve the interests of the powerful few rather than those of the many.
What peaked my interest was an e-mail link to a story in the Colorado Independent, that was sent to me by my friend Perry Cooper. It seems that the Aspen Chamber of Commerce has called-out the U.S. Chamber for
questioning of global warming science and other policies it's adopted that are aimed at thwarting climate-change legislation.
I quickly discovered that the U.S Chamber has quite a reputation for such activities, as reported by Sourcewatch:
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a powerful business lobbying group in the United States, "used to be a trade association that advocated in a bipartisan manner for narrowly tailored policies to benefit its members. Since 1997 or so, it has become a fully functional part of the partisan Republican machine," with CEO and president Thomas J. Donohue "raising its budget to $150M a year from corporate chiefs satisfied with his ability to move policy through a Republican Congress," Matt Stoller wrote December 13, 2006, at MyDD.
The Chamber claims on its website that its mission is to "advance human progress through an economic, political and social system based on individual freedom, incentive, initiative, opportunity, and responsibility." It describes itself as "the world's largest business federation representing more than 3 million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region."
However, the Chamber is "dominated by oil companies, pharmaceutical giants, automakers and other polluting industries," according to James Carter, executive director of the Green Chamber of Commerce.
If you're not already a regular reader of Vermont Newsguy, which we've had in our blogroll for some time now, you should hop over and read today's post on how Verizon Wireless is cozying up to the climate change deniers.
You may have read about it on Facebook, but VNG has the whole story right here, along with some pointed, and very well-founded, criticism of news bias over at WCAX.
Cross-posted from DailyKos. I wrote this live, but had a long drive before to get more internet access.
I'm at Dartmouth College, Cook Auditorium, where James Hansen and Jason Grumet are speaking tonight on the topic of Climate Challenge: Implications for Energy and Policy and Intergenerational Justice.
I'll be live blogging, updating the diary body every couple of minutes with more text. I won't be able to comment until it's over, assuming my battery lasts.
There's a big disclaimer at the bottom of the presentation screen: "Any statements relating to policy are personal opinion."
Note: I can't type as fast as people can speak, so everything will be paraphrased.
Despite the gloomy predictions, Democratic Legislative leaders are going into this veto override session swinging. Tomorrow at 9:30 at the statehouse, leadership will be hosting Ned Raynolds, Northeast Climate Policy Coordinator for the Union of Concerned Scientists who, according to Senator Shumlin's office, will "share new scientific findings from the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment Report (which is being released regionally on the 11th). Mr. Raynolds remarks will focus on the consequences for different sectors of the Vermont economy under two global warming emissions scenarios." The presentation will take place in the Cedar Creek Room, if you're interested.
Think the neocons are on their way out? Not if Rudy Guiliani has anything to say about it. Neoconservative patriarch Norman Podhoretz has been tapped as a foreign policy advisor by Rudy's campaign. To get a flavor of the guy, here's his recent op-ed entitled The Case for Bombing Iran: I hope and pray that President Bush will do it. Swell.
Let's look ahead to just how the H.520 fight could play out in the coming weeks. As I've said, the big mistake of the announcement was twofold; one, that it let many of the supporters feel left out in the cold scratching their heads (and greenvtster is mistaken, only in that leadership had up to that moment, very much been in coordination with the base on this), and two; that the timing was premature and gave the appearence of capitulation, and therefore - weakness (and you never want to show weakness at a time like this).
Still, it was a strategic move, and if you still doubt that - consider how this could now play out.
Leadership holds the veto vote and comes up short. They then do what they've suggested; vote to suspend the rules and modify the bill, putting off the funding schema until January. This bill - a new bill - passes with a simple majority.
Then we go through it again - the new bill goes back to the Governor's desk where he can sign it, veto it, or allow it to become law without his signature. WIthout the funding scheme, the pressure will be a lot greater than it was before -especially since his "unfunded mandate" and "bureaucracy" excuses are so thin, they're falling completely flat.
But let's say the Governor vetoes it again. The Dem leadership then has the option - even the responsibility - of calling another override session. When? Check your calendar, folks, we're talking September again, when we can have all hands on deck - and with a bill that, in theory, many of the opponents have indicated they'll support. With all its policy provisions intact. And the whole thing keeps the issue alive and active in the public debate leading up closer to the election season.
The problem is we've become conditioned to see every move of the leadership as a failure (and the anti-Dem crowd gleefully exploits that), and in this case - at least in the big picture - it's just too early to tell.
The AP is reporting that Governor Douglas, Senator Shumlin, and House Natural Resources Chair Representative Robert Dostis are scheduled to meet tomorrow to discuss the global warming bill and the upcoming July veto-override session. Right on the heels of that announcement comes this from the Senate Prez-Pro-Tem's office:
The leadership of the Vermont House and Senate today announced that in light of Governor Douglas's veto of H.520 and his objection to the source of funding for the bill, Senator Shumlin and Speaker Symington will propose a suspension of the rules during the veto override session on July 11 to consider the same bill with the funding for an all fuels efficiency utility removed. Since the legislation vetoed by the governor stipulates that funding for the all fuels efficiency utility will be needed starting in 2009, this proposal would allow the legislature to consider how to fund the utility when it reconvenes in January. In the meantime, the planning process for the utility, as well as other key provisions in H. 520, will be enacted
This announcement is one of two things; either another example of our legislative leadership running to move the goalposts and compromise before negotiations have even begun... OR... a(n attempt at a) savvy move to put the Governor on the defensive, and put the media focus of tomorrow's meeting squarely on the content of the bill and not the "dreaded" funding scheme vis-a-vis Vermont Yankee.
My money's on the latter, but its risky. Still, the papers and internet are replete with conservatives claiming that they'd be all for this bill with a different funding scheme. This calls their bluff, and leaves them nowhere to hide if they really are global warming deniers. It also puts the BS to the GOP nonsense line that the bill is all about "getting" Vermont Yankee.
Unfortunately, it also leaves the Dems nowhere to go in a July compromise, but to take actual policy content out of the bill. It's a good ploy, but the risk seems perhaps disproportionate and the timing dangerously off. We'll see. The content of the full press release is below the fold, along with a poll as to whether or not you think this is a wise strategic move...
Jim Douglas hardly tries to conceal his snarky streak anymore.Freyne has a quote where Douglas lets his contempt for concerns about climate change shine through:
"I’ve said many times that Vermont has such a small imprint on the surface of the planet that we can do as much as possible and still not save a single polar bear or make any significant impact on global warming,"said Vermont's Republican CEO.
"But China can have an impact because of the environmental challenges the environmental officials we’ve met with recognize and need to deal with. I would hope that Vermonters who have a serious interest in climate change would devote their time and energy to places like China
Looking for the perfect gift for Dan DeWalt this summer? Click here.
Shad 2, Vermont Yankee 1. A judge has again ruled that Vermont Yankee can't dump its water discharge into the Connecticut River (potentially harming fish) after receiving permission from the Douglas Administration to do so.
Speaking of haters, are authorities getting involved with the threats received by Rep. Bill Lippert (D-Hinesburg) thanks to Bill O'Reilly? This site and other Vermont sites have received hits from law enforcement via a Google search for "bill lippert fag". It's not the norm for people in law enforcement to use department computers for personal use, so this is likely a sign of some sort of official inquiry or investigation. Book 'em Dano, I sez.
Climate Change has sure been the topic of the week.
Internationally, of course, Bush predictably rejected German Chancellor Merkel's proposals for greenhouse gas reduction benchmarks, but allowed her to attempt to save face by agreeing to some other meaningless promise to look into the matter, once again. Wonder how many backrubs that measly accomodation cost her.
Locally of course, Governor Douglas followed through on his promise to veto the Vermont Legislature's Climate Change bill, and on news that Al Gore's aid had been enlisted by the Legislative leadership, Douglas quickly cobbled together his own proposal in a failed attempt to steal Gore's thunder (instead, I think he may have added to it, based on the prodigious news coverage).
Douglas's plan at a glance seems odd. A thrown together jumble of half-considered ideas to provide loans to Vermonters for energy efficiency. As if low-income Vermonters will fall in line to heap more debt on themselves (of course, the banks must love it, as these loans would be guaranteed by the state). No idea where the funding for those guarantees will come from (well, we know it won't be Entergy). As for incentives for renewables, I haven't heard anything, and exactly what's supposed to be done with this proposal now that the biennium is done is anyone's guess. Wait til next year I s'pose. All in all, Douglas couldn't have piked a clearer way of showing how little regard or concern he has for the issue.
As for the Gore videoconference over Vermont Interactive Television, his remarks can be heard on VNRC's website. Freyne has a lot of quotes from Shumlin in the brief presser that followed, and he is absolutely right when he says that Shumlin was in top form. Seriously, this was the best he's sounded in many weeks, as he demonstrated a real command of the room. Symington as well seemed more focused and passionate than usual. I suppose the break has already done both of them some good.
And for a hastily thrown together event, it was surprisingly well-attended at the remote VIT sites around the state. It's a shame the tech didn't go off as well, as Gore's link to the VIT network was routed through the internet, rather than via ISDN or satellite (and we all know how the internet can be). After many fits and starts, Gore's audio was a mess and out of sync (you'll hear it if you go to the mp3 link above) - but it was nevertheless audible.
A veto override is still clearly a longshot, but there's an awful lot of focus and energy around the issue that seems to be snowballing, so contact your legislators if you haven't already (and maybe you should do it again if you have).
Legislative Democrats had their chances for a significant power shift increase dramatically today - and they have Jim Douglas to thank for it.
Despite an enormous, broad-based push on its behalf, the Governor has made it clear he will veto the climate change bill, which has become less and less controversial the more members of the media, the legislature and the public have had time to familiarize themselves with it. legislative leaders have scheduled an unusually late July 11 special session to attempt an override - presumably to allow plenty of time to muster support.
Still, an override remains a long shot at best - even with its prospects improving daily. But the Governor just made another decision that opens up a strategic vulnerability; his veto of the new campaign finance bill.
This veto should surprise no one - with a few high-profile exceptions, there's nothing that bugs the GOP machine like campaign finance reform legislation. Both they and their constituency groups can't stand that stuff.
But in adding another potential override to the plate, Douglas may have given an out to some of the more conservative or vascillating Dems that will be under enormous pressure to tow the party line in July. A way to vote with the Governor on the most high-profile issue, but vote against him on the other. Freshman Democratic Representative-appointee Jon Anderson of Montpelier has done little but piss off the Democratic leadership since his arrival (voting with the Governor on a previous veto-override vote, but also in particular on campaign finance, where he sided with the Vermont GOP and Right-to-Life on a key amendment vote), and is very much in the Douglas camp on most issues. However his vote for the impeachment resolution and subsequent comments in the Montpelier Bridge publication indicate he is very concerned about winning re-election as a conservative in liberal Montpelier.
Such a twofer would enable Anderson and others in similar situations to vote for their man Douglas on the high-profile climate bill, but vote against him on campaign finance in order to try and claim political and intellectual independence before their constituents (and the caucus leadership). This isn't necessarily good news for climate change, but it's still good news for Dems, potentially. Why?
Because if a Douglas veto -any veto - is overridden, that'll be the headline in all the papers the next day. And the perceived power shift will have the potential to send shockwaves into the next session, as well as the next election season.
Just when I was wondering where to get that extra bit of cash to finish out the winter, here comes the delightful announcement (covered here by the Guardian), that the American Enterprise Institute (Bush's other brain, and funded by big oil) is offering $10,000 to professionals who will refute the findings of the newly released, definitive international document laying the blame for climate change at humanity's feet
Finally some easy money!
So I am wasting no time firing off my own piece to collect my $10,000 bounty. I've posted it below for your perusal. By all means, give me your feedback (and you might wanna consider penning yer own and gettin' a piece of this - I understand profits are up, so there's...er... money to burn - which is a good thing, since we're running out of oil...)
Today at 9:00 AM, Middlebury College professor and internationally renowned author and activist Bill McKibben will address a joint House/Senate Committee at the Vermont Statehouse to discuss the urgency of addressing Climate Change. Although he's not going in with any prepared statement, he did offer the following to pass along regarding the website he and six recent Middlebury grads launched a few days ago - stepitup07.org - to coordinate a national day of action on climate change on April 14th. According to the website, there are already 94 local events planned in 30 states, but obviously much more help is needed. The following is from the email he sent out announcing the site:
Dear Friend-
I'm writing to ask your help. I know you've already made changes in your own life to deal with climate change; I'm guessing that, like me, you feel a little helpless about the scale of the problem. Some of us who are eager to do something more are organizing a day of demonstrations for April 14. We're calling ourselves Stepitup2007.org, and we need you to be a vital part-to organize a rally in your neck of the woods. If everyone pitches in, we'll have by far the largest action yet in this nation about global warming-large enough that Washington will notice and start to act.
It's going to be an unusual day. People will be rallying in many of America's most iconic places: on the levees in New Orleans, on top of the melting ice sheets on Mt. Hood and in Glacier National Park, even underwater on the endangered coral reefs off Key West and Hawaii. But we need hundreds of rallies outside churches, and in city parks, and in rural fields. It's not a huge task-assemble as many folks as possible, hoist a banner, take a picture. We'll link pictures of the protests together electronically via the web-before the day is out, we'll have a cascade of images to show both local and national media that Americans don't consider this a secondary issue. That instead they want serious action now.
We're not an organization-we're, in essence, a few people sending out invitations to a party. A potluck. This is going to be a homemade day of action. So go to our website at stepitup2007.org, and say `here's where I live-I want to help organize.' We'll coordinate the responses, introducing you to others from your area, and give you everything you need to be a leader, from banners to press releases. You don't have to have ever done anything like this-you're not organizing a March on Washington, just a gathering of scores or hundreds in your town or neighborhood. We need creativity, good humor, commitment. If you are active in a campus group or a church or a local environmental group or a garden society or a bike club-or if you just saw Al Gore's move and want to do something-then we need you now.
And by now, we mean now. The best science tells us we have ten years to fundamentally transform our economy and lead the world in the same direction or else, in the words of NASA's Jim Hansen, we will face a "totally different planet." We're calling for 80 percent carbon cuts by 2050, which would be a good first step to warding off that future. But the exact numbers are less important than the underlying message to Washington: get serious. The recent elections have given us an opening, and polling shows most Americans know there's a problem. But the forces of inertia and business-as-usual are still in control, and only our voices, united and loud, joyful and determined, can change that reality.
Please join us.
Bill McKibben
Although it's hardly news to visitors of this site, it still can't be said enough; it is impossible to work too hard, or move too quickly on this issue. Stop by the website and spread the word.
Okay, so it may not officially start until this upcoming week, but in many ways that matter, the '07 Legislative session has been underway for a while now. It doesn't take a genius to see that in recent legislative cycles, the more a Party holds control of the public debate, the more they control the actual agenda. In '05 after a lot of good work by the Dems on health care, Governor Douglas stepped into the limelight and took complete control of the discussion before lawmakers had even left the Statehouse to return to their districts. That control was certainly on display in the final product, as well as in the accolades from the likes of the AARP.
The Republicans (naturally) are the only Party who seems to be tackling this in an organized, head-on way. Despite the fact that both the Ds and the Rs are in transition - moving into a new legislature as well as new Party leadership - you wouldn't guess it on the R's part from the recent papers. Message testing and propogating is very much in play, seemingly already pushing the GOP framing of property taxes and a new twist on civil confinement into the media forefront. Take a look at this AP piece on the upcoming agenda which leads on property tax:
(House Minority Leader Steve) Adams and his colleagues called for creation of a special House committee dedicated to property tax reform, much as Symington created for health care when she was elected speaker two years ago.
But she has rejected that approach, arguing that a much broader debate has to take place about why education costs what it does as well as about how it's funded.
Not only is the issue front and center on the GOP's terms, but Symington is already being placed on the defensive.
